Another entry in the series where I offer up Bible verses dealing with wealth, poverty and living aright. There is a sidebar below on the left (Titled, "The Bible and Economics") where you can see the other entries. Today, we're looking at 1 Timothy. I'm breaking Paul's letter to Timothy up into two sections, because there's so much to talk about.
Here, then, are selected passages from 1 Timothy chapters 2, 3 and 5. I'll save chapter 6 for later.
======
Women should adorn themselves with proper conduct, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hairstyles and gold ornaments, or pearls, or expensive clothes, but rather, as befits women who profess reverence for God, with good deeds.
1 Timothy 2:9-10
...a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money.
He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity... Similarly, deacons must be dignified, not deceitful, not addicted to drink, not greedy for sordid gain...
1 Timothy 3:3-4;8
Honor widows who are truly widows. But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let these first learn to perform their religious duty to their own family and to make recompense to their parents, for this is pleasing to God.
The real widow, who is all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day. But the one who is self-indulgent is dead while she lives.
If any woman believer has widowed relatives, she must assist them; the church is not to be burdened, so that it will be able to help those who are truly widows...
Presbyters who preside well deserve double honor, especially those who toil in preaching and teaching. For the scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it is threshing," and, "A worker deserves his pay."
1 Timothy 5:3-6; 16-18
56 comments:
Timothy is one of those letters written by Paul (or that's the traditional presumption) that really sounds like the second half of a correspondence.
What letter was written to Paul that prompted this response? What questions were asked? What situations did Timothy find himself in?
Obviously, there was some discussion taking place as to how to deal with the poor (widows, specifically) and about leadership roles in the church.
But clearly, being content with what you have, not being a lover of money, being a good worker, familial responsibilities and tending to the needs of the poor are all concerns addressed.
These ideals are all consistent with the ongoing theme we've seen in the broader look at the Bible and wealth/poverty.
So... a woman isn't a "real" widow if she has children? What if her children are small and can't yet "make recompense"?
I'll be honest. I've never really liked Paul all that much. He comes across as a male chauvinist to me. Years ago, my former pastor, Bruce Prescott and I discussed that. He was never able to convince me otherwise.
Yeah, I was going to get to that.
This is one of those letters (and they're not all this way) where Paul comes across quite negatively. A straightforward read makes it appear that Paul was a sexist, insensitive, homophobic, condescending, patriarchal pig.
And, given the culture in which he sprung, doubtless some of that is true. I mean, saying, "You're not REALLY a widow unless you are totally abandoned and destitute" is to make mockery of the word widow and the inherent hardships - especially in their day.
And that is why I wondered about the context? What questions was Paul answering? What circumstances was he addressing? What are the actual definitions of some of these words?
I'm not astute enough on this book/epistle to be able to answer that, but given the greater context of the whole Bible, I am willing to cut Paul some slack, to think that perhaps something has been lost in the translation here.
And, again, I think the wealth/poverty lifestyle type teachings here are consistent with the whole.
(Wait until we get to Chapter 6 and slavery...)
Of course, there is the possibility that the pastoral letters were written long after Paul's death by a pseudepigraphical author, and maybe he really isn't the "sexist, insensitive, homophobic, condescending, patriarchal pig" that First Timothy makes him appear to be.
That's another possibility, but then, that just makes someone else appear to be a goober.
Just to comment on the debate about Paul as chauvinist. One really must get beyond a superficial reading of the text, and the author, if you wish to engage with the thought here. One gets nowhere with texts, especially ancient texts, if unwilling to do the work of investigating the setting and cultural environment. Thomas Cahill in Desire of the Everlasting Hills makes a commendable and accessible study on this. A person could quite easily make the case for Paul being a progressive. It is pretty essential to see that if you want to fairly study the text.
Thanks Brd..I'm gonna check that out.
I do hope someone will attempt to answer these questions in an intelligent respectful manner without throwing stones and judgement everywhere.
These are really good questions you've asked Dan and I would really like to see an honest and open discussion that doesn't get sidetracked off into...well, you know.
Didn't intend to sound like a goober(if that comment was directed at me) but my point was that Paul appears to portray a "special class" of widows in First Timothy. Those whose behavior sets them apart and makes them deserving of help from their fellow Christians.
But that assumes Paul wrote First Timothy.
"about 80 to 90 percent of modern scholars would agree that the Pastorals were written after Pauls lifetime" R.F.Collins, Letters That Paul Did Not Write
and
"If one accepts pseudepigraphical authorship, virtually every issue pertinent to the letters has to be rethought." S.E.Porter, Bulletin for Biblical Research 5 (1995), 105-23
Not intended to be unintelligent, or disrespectful, or to throw stones and judgement everywhere, or to get us sidetracked into...well..you know.
Oh no...I didn't mean that comment for you kmooo...not at all. Why would you think I mean't it for you?
With regard to the goober, I think Dan was referring to the writer of Timothy, not you.
Some who stop by here, no matter what Dan posts, are confrontational regarding his salvation. I said that, anticipating it might happen again, but in hopes that it doesn't.
"If one accepts pseudepigraphical authorship, virtually every issue pertinent to the letters has to be rethought." S.E.Porter,"
I'd have to agree with that statement.
I purchased "Desire of the Everlasting Hills" online today. Perhaps I can find some answers to those questions.
Too bad we don't have the letters that were written which prompted these responses. It would probably shed some light.
I always misinterpret the tone and context during these darned online conversations. :)
Kmoo is a sight for sore Eyes
His visits are always a prize
Like sweet tater tubers
He's my favorite goober
And his intelligence is super-sized.
Dan, I'm not sure what justifies your being dismissive of Paul's writing concerning men and women, why you think it is "doubtless" that Paul demonstrates some combination of sexism, insensitivity, and/or homophobia.
You point to Paul's cultural background; is this background significantly different than that of Peter, James, and the rest of the New Testament writers? Was his culture not significantly shaped by the law of Moses and the rest of what we now call the Old Testament?
You write that Paul's instructions on taking care of the poor "are consistent with the whole" of the Bible. Is the same not also true with his teachings regarding men and women? Can't the same point of view be found in the account of creation; in the establishment of the covenant through Abraham and his son Isaac and Isaac's son Jacob; in the twelve tribes of Israel descending from Jacob's twelve sons; and in numerous commands within the law of the Old Covenant?
Jesus Christ emphasized that we should care for the poor, but did He not also exclusively choose men as His Apostles?
With the exception of the one passage where Paul makes clear he's offering his own opinion and not divine revelation, I know of no Biblical justification for not taking Paul's writing about the sexes any less seriously as his writing about the poor -- or for assuming that his writing about the one subject is any less authoritative than the other.
There's an unnecessary "not" in the last sentence, but the meaning should still be clear.
Let me remind folk that the topic of this post is wealth and poverty as it relates to, in this case, Paul's writing.
I had figured that the sexism and patriarchal stuff might come up, just because the wording in these passages sound so darned sexist and patriarchal.
So, I will create another post where folk can talk about that aspect of Paul's writings.
For the time being, let me just say that I'm no expert on the writings attributed to Paul as it relates to sexism. I just know what I read.
I further know that Paul's (and Peter's, Jesus', etc - indeed, biblical times, in general) culture was a patriarchal one - where women had no rights, were the "property" of their husbands or fathers and were relegated to a pretty low rung on the ladder.
I think it natural that the Bible's writings reflect their times. We'll see this again in 1 Timothy 6 when he talks about slavery. The Bible is, to some degree, a product of its time.
Nonetheless, there is a radical edge that shines through in biblical writings, "In Christ, there IS no male or female...," Jesus' treatment of women as equals that he is willing to talk with, women having leadership roles in church (and in Israel) as prophets, deacons, preachers, rulers, judges, etc.
All of this (and more) hints at the more egalitarian nature of God that is more fully realized societally today than it was in biblical times.
But, as I said, I'll create another post dealing with that topic. If you don't mind, beyond a quick comment or two, let's drop it here.
Does anyone have a comment about the writings here as it relates to wealth and poverty?
Beyond the sexism/patriarchy thing, I don't think there's too much controversial here - we ought not be lovers of money, we ought not be greedy, we ought not seek sordid gain (although, if we start talking about the meaning of "sordid gain," that might generate some conversation).
In these particular verses, I think the ones with the most questions associated with it is the widows and assistance angle. This might be helpful in consideration with other verses that talk about the church's approach to assistance for the poor.
Assuming that this second post is put up quickly, I have no problem deferring the issue of how the Bible approaches sexuality, and whether it's justifiable to differentiate between what the Bible says about sex and what it says about "economics."
About economics, I think the Bible is clear that there is a duty to meet the needs of the poor. Since I believe the Bible is authoritative on all subjects, from cover to cover, I believe this duty is real.
The only question is, whose duty? The Bible emphasizes the duty of charity that belongs to the individual and to the church; I do not believe it explicitly assigns this duty to the government, in whole or in part.
About this subject of "The Bible and Economics," Dan, I would like to make a request, if you take requests.
Leviticus 19:15
Do you think this particular command has any bearing on how we should treat people today? I'd love to see a blog entry on this verse, but a comment or two here would be great, too.
I'd be glad to do Leviticus 19. Given time, I eventually would like to have a fairly exhaustive list of what the Bible has to say - front to back - on the topic.
In the short run, Lev 19:15 says, "Be fair, no matter who is on trial--don't favor either the poor or the rich." and I think that this is certainly an idea that is consistent through the Bible.
However, it is balanced by other verses where God repeatedly "sides with" the poor. God makes it clear repeatedly that God will not abide by mistreatment of the poor. God makes no such statements about the rich.
Instead, we are repeatedly warned about the dangers of wealth and of loving/idolizing wealth and ease. The rich are repeatedly told to beware how they treat the poor. Gov'ts are repeatedly warned about injust policies that oppress the poor.
And so, while it is certainly true that we ought not favor either the rich or poor (and the context of Leviticus seems to be in a court of law), we ARE to be especially watchful specifically for the rights of the poor. And why is this?
I think because wealth has a tendency to bring corruption and mistreatment and so there is more of a need for warning the wealthy than there is the poor.
Some thoughts off the top of my head on the subject...
"Unjust policies," I meant.
And I'll post the Paul sexism thing here today or tomorrow.
Dan:
However, it is balanced by other verses where God repeatedly "sides with" the poor. God makes it clear repeatedly that God will not abide by mistreatment of the poor. God makes no such statements about the rich.
The implication is, what? That God will abide mistreatment of the rich?
I agree that God "sides with" the poor, but against whom? The rich in general, or oppression specifically? Given the Bible's record of how He blessed some with wealth, it seems to me that God didn't side with the poor against the rich, but that He sides with the righteous against the unrighteous, the oppressed against their oppressors. The poor come up more often in the category of the oppressed, but that may be because, historically, they have been the victims of more oppression.
I don't agree with the idea that wealth brings corruption: neither Job nor Joseph were more corrupt when they were more wealthy. Like power, what wealth seems to do isn't cause corruption, but simply allow pre-existing corruption to flourish. It adds fuel to the fire, but it doesn't itself bring the spark.
It's unjust to favor the rich over the poor, certainly: to give the rich man the best seat in the house of God, to presume that his wealth or health is proof of God's love or blessing while another man's poverty or illness is proof of God's curse.
But the reverse is certainly also true, that it's unjust to favor the poor over the rich. If it's wrong to presume that some man's poverty must be the result of his wickedness (e.g., sloth), it is likewise wrong to presume that another man's wealth is the result of ill-gotten gains and the short-term benefit of his wickedness (e.g., greed).
We have a duty to meet the needs of the poor more than the rich -- since, obviously, they have more needs -- but ours is not to pass judgment on either, to tell the poor that God sides "with them" and against the rich.
Jesus reached out to poor, lame beggars, but He also went out of His way to dine with Zaccheus.
The parable of the talents should make clear, it's not what we have -- we're not judged for having less than most others or for having more -- it's what we do with what we have.
The Bible emphasizes the duty of charity that belongs to the individual and to the church; I do not believe it explicitly assigns this duty to the government, in whole or in part.
1. The Bible in no place suggests that gov't CAN'T be part of a solution in dealing with poverty and justice issues.
2. Indeed, in some of the OT verses we've looked at or will look at, there are some very specific verses about gov't's ROLE in assisting the poor, in having just policies that don't oppress the poor.
I'll try to delve into this more when I have time.
I don't agree with the idea that wealth brings corruption: neither Job nor Joseph were more corrupt when they were more wealthy.
I didn't say that wealth brings corruption. I said that wealth tends to bring corruption.
That, I think, is why there are SO MANY warnings against wealth, the love of wealth, and to and for the wealthy throughout the Bible.
"Is it not the wealthy who are mistreating you?..."
"Woe to you who are rich..."
"How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!..."
"Command those who are rich in this present age not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain riches but in the living God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy..."
"Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you! Your riches are corrupted..."
"People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction..."
"Do not wear yourself out to get rich; have the wisdom to show restraint. Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone, for they will surely sprout wings and fly off to the sky like an eagle..."
"Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income..."
"Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have..."
"The wealth of the rich is their fortified city; they imagine it an unscalable wall."
On and on it goes, warning after warning. I think they're there for a reason.
But the reverse is certainly also true, that it's unjust to favor the poor over the rich.
For the most part, I'm not disagreeing with most of what you've written in this post, except that I think that wealth is a trap - a danger to be watched out for and one that leads easily (BUT NOT EVERY TIME) to oppression, cheating and harming the poor.
It's in the considerations of the dangers of wealth where I think we may disagree.
1. In Romans, the only duty Paul explicitly gives the government is one regarding justice -- punishing the wicked and rewarding the good -- not charity or mercy.
2. I'm interested to see the OT laws that you think require charitable acts specifically on the part of the government of ancient Israel rather than its people. And -- and this is something of a digression, like the related issue of the Bible and sexuality -- any appeal you make to OT law should include an explanation of why you make that appeal in the first place, considering that you dismiss much of the Torah as commands to commit rape and other atrocities.
I'll post the verses later, but the OT talks of the gov't of Israel's responsibility for implementing Sabbath laws and other laws that help the poor.
The Gleaning laws, for instance, required the people of Israel to leave part of their land for the poor, the foreigners, the needy. If I'm not mistaken, it's even phrased such that this gleaned food belongs to the poor.
So, it's not even an act of charity so much as making sure that the people get their rightful and just provisions - even though by our standards today, that land and its fruit "belong to" the owners. I don't think God looks at it that way.
Regardless, the Nation of Israel was held accountable if the people of Israel did not allow this justice to happen. They didn't have taxes like we have today so there was no money taken from the land owners to provide assistance to the poor, so instead, the laws were such that the landowners were to allow the poor to come take what was theirs, within specific parameters.
It was quite an elegant solution. And it was a national solution, or at least was intended to be. Israel often sinned by not following through with these laws.
If you would like to allow for that sort of solution (where the poor just go take from the "edges" of stores and fields) instead of a taxed solution (where we set up assistance programs), I'm okay with talking about it, but I'm not sure how well it would work today and I sorta doubt that you'd be in favor of that.
Bubba said:
In Romans, the only duty Paul explicitly gives the government is one regarding justice -- punishing the wicked and rewarding the good -- not charity or mercy.
And Paul never "explicitly gives" the gov't the duty of building roads or of subsidizing coal or oil companies. You're arguing from silence.
I repeat, no where is gov't providing assistance condemned. Even if you doubt there are passages that demonstrate explicitly gov't providing assistance, neither is it condemned.
You can't make the argument that "The Bible (or God) says gov't should NOT provide assistance to the poor." All you can say - at most - is that the Bible is silent on the topic (and I question that.)
In case you or anyone has missed it before, let me be clear: I prefer church or other civic-based solutions to assistance. I think those who know fairly intimately the persons being assisted are often (but not always) in the best position to help those in need.
The church and/or other NGOs can, at any time they want, put gov't pretty nearly out of the assistance business by putting their resources to helping those in need. And I would be glad for it. I like local, small solutions best.
BUT, as long as churches, et al, are NOT assisting the poor and there are children living on the streets, mentally ill having their homes taken from them, etc, etc, then I think it perfectly fine for the gov't to have a role in assistance.
From a Christian point of view, there is certainly absolutely nothing in the Bible that would condemn such steps and there ARE passages in the Bible that condemn whole nations for failing to tend to the needs of the least of these.
And, from a purely civic point of view, helping those in need before they end up on the streets, in prisons and/or dead or in the hospitals tends to SAVE taxpayer dollars and that's a good thing, too.
"I prefer church or other civic-based solutions to assistance."
But here in these scriptures it seems to me that Paul is saying that the church should not be burdened with assistance at all unless the needy (widow) has no one at all to help...no family...nothing. He is saying that we are our brother's keeper. I'm wondering if that also means no civic assistance as well unless the person truly is alone in the world? And what if they have family, but the family refuses to help? What is our christian duty then?
Good discussion.
Good questions, Marty.
I agree with Bubba (ha!) that it is a Christian (and ethical, in general) obligation to tend to the poor and otherwise marginalized. Besides Paul's writing here, we have a boat-load of other scriptures to back the notion up.
Paul was writing here (unless I'm mistaken) to a church that didn't have much money, so finding the "TRULY needy" was a matter of high importance. And yet, he wished the church to do its duty to the poor and be there for them.
Therefore, it sounds like to me that he's saying IF the (Christian) family can take care of the needy individual at all, that is what is to happen. Church assistance was for the neediest who didn't have a place to turn at all.
I think we can get some general ideas and Truths from this, as well as the Bible as a whole, but we also have to find a way to make it fit in our context. The general truths being ones that we all agree upon:
The neediest ought to be assisted.
That we are to care for/side with "the least of these."
That those who can work, ought to work, and do work that is just and good.
That families should help their own when possible.
That we ought not be greedy, nor pursue riches for their own sake.
etc.
Making policy (personal and/or civic) out of these ideals is the tricky part.
I must say what a lovely set of comments those are, Bubba. Sincerely.
You disagree with me on a few points (or at least by a measure of degrees, disagree with me) but you did so beautifully and respectfully. I love this kind of conversation.
And, in truth, I don't know how much we disagree. There's not a whole lot that I disagree with in your commentary.
You stated:
My stated support for the free market isn't a smokescreen for a less populist set of subsidies...
In other words, you're not opposed to welfare when it comes to the poor, but in favor of welfare when it comes to oil companies. Good for you. You're consistent on that point.
We agree, then, that rich corporations don't need gov't assistance.
Also, I think you've stated before that you're not totally opposed to gov't assistance for the poor, just to the degree that it is offered. (That is, you don't have a problem with gov't assistance for the children with cancer whose mother is homeless and therefore they're all living on the streets, for instance.) If so, we agree on that point in theory, just not to what degree.
You stated:
My position is not, "The Bible explicitly forbids government assistance for the poor," it is that the Bible makes no clear statement on the subject, either way.
Again, we agree - or at least we agree that the Bible does not forbid gov't assistance. I suppose I'm convinced that Israel's model (and it was not always a theocracy) shows gov't providing assistance, or at least providing systems of assistance...
This conversation is absolutely wonderful!
Just wanted to pop in and say that.
Marshall also said:
Because of sin, both wealth and poverty can push us away from God: the former in self-centered pride, the latter in self-centered despair. I simply don't believe one is universally more dangerous than the other.
1. I agree, wealth, poverty, family, drugs, all kinds of things can help push us away from God.
2. But the Bible doesn't focus on poverty pushing us away from God. Nor does it focus on family pushing us away from God.
3. There is a HUGE common, central focus on the Bible on the problems with wealth. Hundreds, if not thousands of verses, I'd suggest (we can count if and when I ever finish this series) of passages deal with the problems of wealth and oppression resulting from it.
Now, this is just an opinion, for what it's worth, but I don't think "poverty" is especially dangerous, at all - from a moral danger angle.
But I do think, based on this consistent pounding theme found in the Bible, that wealth is.
I don't think poverty is a trap. I do think wealth is.
I don't think either poverty OR wealth are sins, but wealth is singled out for warnings about as often as idolatry (which often come close to being one and the same, seems to me) - and these two topics are probably the most warned about in the Bible.
I don't think those warnings are there for nothing.
Finally, Dan, you write, "the Bible doesn't focus on poverty pushing us away from God."
I don't think poverty is a trap. I do think wealth is.
I don't think either poverty OR wealth are sins, but wealth is singled out for warnings about as often as idolatry (which often come close to being one and the same, seems to me) - and these two topics are probably the most warned about in the Bible.
I don't think those warnings are there for nothing.
The question is not whether we are warned about the dangers of wealth, but whether we are exclusively warned about wealth, whether prosperity is "singled out" and not adversity.
I'm not saying the warnings about greed and pride "are there for nothing," only that they don't discount the other warnings and teachings about worry and despair, from the example of David in his many Psalms of lament, to Christ's teaching about how God cares even for birds and flowers, to Peter's encouragement for those who suffer for doing the right thing.
I'm not denying that the Bible warns against prosperity; excepting disagreements about interpretation (e.g., in Luke 6) the numerous passages you cite is proof enough of that.
What I'm denying is the subsequent conclusion you draw:
I don't think poverty is a trap. I do think wealth is.
Even beyond what David wrote and what Christ and Peter taught, I have one thing to invoke in response.
The Book of Job.
What did Satan say when he approached God? "Behold that poor, faithful beggar; let me shower him with more gold than he could count, and he'll forget all about You"?
Nope. The wager was, allow rich and prosperous Job to be struck down with all sorts of calamity -- the loss of his health, the loss of his family, and poverty -- and "he will curse You to Your face."
The major lesson of Job isn't to avoid pride in prosperity, but to avoid despair in adversity, because God is sovereign.
To me at least, this seems very hard to miss.
"My answer is that I take the same approach to the rich/poor dichotomy here as I do to the healthy/sick dichotomy"
I don't know Bubba. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I don't see how you can take the same approach. My mind is not as sharp as it used to be. I'll have to think about that one for a while.
One quick comment:
the Great Society was arguably unwise, but it was certainly unconstitutional.
That is an opinion that you and a few others hold Bubba, but it is not an opinion that everyone holds, nor is it one that our Supreme Court has agreed with. If it were unconstitutional, then it would have been successfully challenged at SOME point over the last 60-ish years and ONE of the supreme courts would have ruled in your favor.
It's fine for you to have that opinion, but it's not a legally correct opinion, nor is it apparently one the majority of the US agrees with.
Isn't it rather akin to me saying that "Clearly, a military the size of ours is unconstitutional!" Is it? No, that's just an opinion not based on legal reality.
Bubba said:
What I'm denying is the subsequent conclusion you draw:
I don't think poverty is a trap. I do think wealth is.
Even beyond what David wrote and what Christ and Peter taught, I have one thing to invoke in response... JOB
1. Why do you think the book of Job is evidence that wealth is not a trap?
2. I didn't say that wealth causes people to stumble every time. I didn't say that wealth is a sin. I have stated that wealth tends to cause people to stumble, tends to cause people to trust in wealth rather than God, tends to lead towards oppressive - sometimes unintentionally! - behavior.
3. When you say, "beyond what David wrote... what Christ and Peter taught," to what are you referring? Do you think that somehow they taught something to suggest that wealth does not tend to cause problems; does not tend to entrap people in a snare?
The authentic Paul was very egalitarian, especially for his times. See Gal. 3:28 and elsewhere. I Tim. is written much later, by an unnamed disciple of Paul, after the "discipleship of equals" that prevailed in the earliest history of the church had moved to a "love patriarchy." (It would move further to just "patriarchy" without the love by the 4th C.) But, to defend the author of I Tim. slightly, "widow" in this case is obviously a church office--probably equal to "deaconess."
Women who have been widowed but have children who can take care of them (remember that there are very few jobs open to women in those days) should not be enrolled as official church "widows" that draw a church salary--save the money for those that do.
Further, the author is writing to a setting (probably Crete) where there is a heresy that says that marriage is no longer important and that sex is purely recreational. It is being spread by the women, so "Paul" tells THESE women not to teach but to learn in quietness and humbleness.
I can't go into the whole thing, here. But I'd advise not to get distracted by this and concentrate on what these verses say about economics.
Thanks for the input, Michael.
Dan, let me make myself absolutely clear, regarding this passage:
"I don't think poverty is a trap. I do think wealth is."
My objection is to the first sentence in particular, and I think the Book of Job makes clear that the first sentence is not consistent with what the Bible teaches.
When I wrote about what David wrote, and what Jesus and Peter taught, the writing "beyond" those passages was the Book of Job. To rephrase the point, I think the Psalms, the Sermon on the Mount, and I Peter are more than enough to indicate that poverty can be a spiritual trap, too, but if that's not enough, the Book of Job as a whole makes the point most emphatically.
Now, about the constitutionality of the Great Society, in general I think the Constitution is fairly easy to read and understand; there's no passage to which you can point that can persuasively argue that Congress has the enumerated right to create social welfare programs. I don't need the Supreme Court to rule on this to tell me what the document says, it's clear from history that the court doesn't always make the right decision, and it's clear from recent history that the court doesn't always appeal to the Constitution to make its judgment.
But in this particular case, the argument is specious, that, if the Great Society was unconstitutional, the court would have decided so by now. In 1937, FDR threatened to increase the number of Supreme Court justices to force through the minimum wage law and other New Deal proposals, and the court folded like a deck chair. Since that political bullying, the court hasn't been a reliable referee limiting Congress to its enumerated powers, and there haven't been enough strict constructionists appointed to change that.
Quickly, on the constitutionality of Federal Relief programs:
It seems you're saying, Bubba, that despite what the Supreme Court thinks or (I'd wager) the majority of Americans think, you think welfare type programs are unconstitutional. That's fine, we're all free to think what we want.
I guess my question is: If it were the case that neither the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches of gov't think that federal assistance programs are unconstitutional, AND if the majority of Americans also don't think it is constitutional, ought we consider what a minority of individual citizens think about the topic as the deciding factor?
That is, if everyone but a thousand people disagree with you, on what basis would we support making a change?
I fully understand that there are some people out there who think as you do, but it is a minority position. We ALL have the liberty and obligation to read the Constitution and interpret it as best we can, and most folk simply don't agree with you, I'd suggest.
Dan, since you do not seem to esteem the majority opinion on whether the Bible defines marriage as exclusively heterosexual, I'm not sure why you would appeal to polls regarding the contents of the Constitution.
As much faith as I have in the common man, I also know that basic civic literacy is in poor shape: as short and straight-forward as the document is, I don't know how many people actually know what the Constitution says.
And of those who know the contents of the Constitution, many are flippant in disregarding it, and appeals to a "living document" are attempts to hide their contempt of the document's actual contents.
(Of the people who think our government should be constrained by a "living document," I wonder how many -- or how few -- would agree to play softball or Texas Hold'em, for even a small stake of money, with a similarly flexible and unpredictable set of rules.)
For literally generations, some have held the Constitution in the same contempt that Woodrow Wilson displayed, writing that the President should be "as big a man as he can," limited not by a written constitution but only by his own ability to set the rules:
"Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand."
Polls may reflect, not the actual belief that the Constitution permits a particular policy, but rather the hope that the policy is ruled to be permitted so that it can be more easily enacted.
I frankly have little regard for any approach to the Constitution that rejects originalism and constructionism.
There are large majorities of voters and government officials who think that social welfare at the federal level is constitutionally permissible? Okay: what part of the Constitution do they think permits it?
I can point to the specific passage that gives the federal government the power to coin money and have a post office:
Article I, Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures...
To establish Post Offices and post Roads...
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
I can do likewise regarding the power to tax income.
Amendment 16.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
So:
What section of the Constitution permits Congress to create a social welfare program. If the vast majority have a valid reason to think the Constitution permits such a program, surely you can easily cite the specific section.
he Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence AND GENERAL WELFARE of the United States
Thank God, as time went on, more benevolent heads prevailed. My family would have starved to death it it hadn't been for the WPA.
Now if we could only get national health care.
I'm well aware that there have been a few people over the years who have said words to the effect that they agree with you, Bubba, on the welfare line.
The thing is, the Constitution says what it says, and what it says is general. When it says:
to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
It's not telling us specifically HOW we are to provide for the Common Defence and general welfare - just that this falls within the scope of the Constitution and role of Gov't. HOW we do that is up to we, the people.
The thing is, we disagree. But clearly, you have no evidence or support that the Constitution does not allow for assistance type programs. You have an opinion. One that is in the minority.
I'm also well aware that an opinion being in the minority does not make it wrong (I'm in the minority quite often and think I'm correct still).
What it does mean is that we, the people disagree with that minority position (a pretty tiny minority position it seems to me) and in this great nation, we aren't going to defer to the minority who wishes to read the Constitution in their way. You'll have to do a better job than you have here.
I suppose you know Thomas Jefferson tried to get bills passed to support free public education and free public libraries? And he wanted to "throw on wealth the education of the poor," ie, get the wealthy to pay for it? Danged socialist!
"I have indeed two great measures at heart, without which no republic can maintain itself in strength:
1. That of general education, to enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom.
2. To divide every county into hundreds, of such size that all the children of each will be within reach of a central school in it."
~Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1810.
======
"I ... [proposed] three distinct grades of education, reaching all classes.
1. Elementary schools for all children generally, rich and poor.
2. Colleges for a middle degree of instruction, calculated for the common purposes of life and such as should be desirable for all who were in easy circumstances.
And
3d. an ultimate grade for teaching the sciences generally and in their highest degree... The expenses of [the elementary] schools should be borne by the inhabitants of the county, every one in proportion to his general tax-rate. This would throw on wealth the education of the poor."
~Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821.
======
"I have often thought that nothing would do more extensive good at small expense than the establishment of a small circulating library in every county, to consist of a few well-chosen books, to be lent to the people of the country, under such regulations as would secure their safe return in due time."
~Thomas Jefferson to John Wyche, 1809.
======
"The tax which will be paid for [the] purpose [of education] is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance."
~Thomas Jefferson to George Wythe, 1786.
Smart man, that Jefferson. I guess he must not have read the Constitution, though, given all the programs he wanted to start that were "unconstitutional."
Read all about it...
Dan, the site to which you linked supports my position that the Constitution as-written didn't permit Congress to fund education.
Even Jefferson himself seemed to concur.
Jefferson felt so strongly about education that he, as a strict constitutional constructionist, submitted to congress an amendment to the constitution to legalize federal support for education in his State of the Union Address, December 2, 1806. "Education is here placed among the articles of public care. . . " (Honeywell, 1964, p. 63).
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree. . . . An amendment to our constitution must here come in aid of the public education. The influence over government must be shared among all people. (as cited in Padover, 1939, p. 87)
If Jefferson believed the Constitution would have to be amended to give Congress the power to fund public education, then he clearly believed that Congress didn't already have that power.
Q.E.D.
I find myself out of time to effectively discuss things. It may be that you are correct on Jefferson and at least some of the founders, I'd have to look into it some more.
If so, a point to you for establishing that at least some founders did not think that providing for the welfare of people should extend to education and maybe other things.
Nonetheless, we the people are not buying that it is thus limited as you think it is.
Now, if I had more time, I'd like to go down, program by program, and look at some of the ways that federal moneys are working to save taxpayer dollars and improve the lives of folk. Unfortunately, I don't have that kind of time.
But I believe we have looked at together the convict recidivism issue. This is an issue that has been reviewed and studied a good bit and every study I have read shows that, by investing in prisoner education and rehabilitation, the recidivism rate goes down enough that the programs pay for themselves.
I think the citizenry at large is okay with making that kind of investment in our society – for reasons of compassion, partially, but beyond that, out of self-interest and fiscal responsibility. If it costs more to the citizenry to re-imprison convicts than it does to educate them, then I want to pay the cheaper cost.
Now, as I said earlier, I’m all good with local private solutions to these sorts of issues. BUT, if private orgs don’t come through and gov’t solutions can provide answers, I’m okay with that, too. Local gov’t solutions would be my next favorite approach, but failing that, I’m okay with Federal solutions.
The key point being, does it work? If it saves taxpayer dollars and relieves problems, I’m okay with it.
Really, Dan, you're going back to arguing that polls should determine what's constitutional? Is this really because you're suddenly caught by absolute time constraints?
To be fair, I imagine that you really don't have enough time to find a persuasive argument that the authors of the Constitution intended the "welfare clause" to be an open-ended warrant for any government program imaginable: I don't think anyone has time enough to make find that kind of argument, because it doesn't exist.
Hence, appeals to a "living" document that says what we want it to say.
Hence, the explicit contempt for the Constitution that Wilson and his intellectual heirs have routinely displayed.
And, hence, vague appeals to how "we the people" don't accept my position rather than a detailed explanation as to why we shouldn't.
And if you don't have time to discuss the Constitution, do we really have time to discuss recidivism?
Not polls. The People.
You have a problem with the way the People interpret the Constitution, you'll have to make your case to the People and convince them of the soundness of your position.
If the people -- sorry, the People -- belive that the Constitution permits Congress to create social welfare programs, surely they have a good reason for believing so, right? A simple but persuasive appeal to a particular section of the Constitution shouldn't be hard for you to produce.
I've demonstrated that your appeal to the "welfare clause" is in direct opposition to the founders' intent, and I've further demonstrated the implausibility of your claim that the Constitution deals only in vague generalities. Even the documentation that you brought to this discussion proved my point, as it showed that Thomas Jefferson didn't believe that the Constitution as-written permitted education programs at the federal level: he proposed an amendment to give the federal government the power to create such programs.
Indeed, those of us who uphold the Founders' vision of a government limited by the powers enumerated by the Constitution need to remind the rest of us of that vision. We're doing that now, but we could stand to do more.
But appeals to the People, Dan, do not mitigate your own responsibility to know and understand the Constitution.
If you have a truly good argument against my position, I urge you to quit wasting the limited time you say have and start presenting that argument.
If you don't, then it will have become clear that we're not arguing over the actual contents of the Constitution: while I'm presenting what the Constitution says, you're just defending your own wishful thinking about what you would like the Constitution to say.
I've demonstrated that your appeal to the "welfare clause" is in direct opposition to the founders' intent, and I've further demonstrated the implausibility of your claim that the Constitution deals only in vague generalities.
No, you have demonstrated that my appeal to the welfare clause is in direct opposition to your take on the founders' intent. You have not won me or the People over. Sorry.
Let's not focus on the People since you are not Their representative.
My argument has not won you over personally? Then surely you must have a better argument for your position. Let's see it.
If you think "my take" on the Founders' intent isn't the most plausible, let's see you demonstrate how another take is more plausible.
Stating repeatedly that my argument is unpersuasive while offering no further attempts to explain why -- much less to argue for your own position -- gives me the impression that you don't have a substantive reason for rejecting my position.
I'll strive to find time for it when you answer some of my questions in the women/bible discussion.
The problem is that I'm not exhaustively familiar with ALL the writings of the founders, nor of all the implications and takes on Constitutional law. I'll freely admit that.
And so, all I know right now is that the Constitution spells out that the General Welfare falls under Constitutional authority and that I've seen writings of folk like Jefferson that don't seem to limit it to building roads and the military.
And regardless, the direction of this great nation is up to We, the People. That is why the Constitution has been constructed as it was. I have not heard a convincing argument that shows why we should limit our federal powers to roads and wars.
And so, all of that is to say that it's a bigger argument than I'm well-versed in and would take more time to consider, research and answer.
Is that why you're not addressing the women/Bible questions I've asked you, as well? I know we can't all be well-versed on every topic.
All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition.
~Benjamin Franklin
What was HE thinking??
Dan, I agree that Jefferson believed that the government should do more than pave roads and build armies. But it doesn't follow that he believed the "welfare clause" gave the federal government the constitutional power to do more. Hence, his attempt to amend the Constitution.
Regarding Franklin's quote, apparently from a 1783 letter to Robert Morris which is easily found online, the context reveals that the statement has little bearing on our discussion:
All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.
This is an extremely broad philosophical point, that since the artifacts of civilization largely result from society, society has the right to regulate those artifacts. This does NOT imply that the "welfare clause" of Article I, Section 8, grants the federal government powers beyond those that have enumerated.
This should go without saying, but just because a Founding Father writes something with the word "welfare" in it, it doesn't mean he's expounding on the "welfare clause."
The quotes from Madison and others that I've cited are specifically regarding that clause:
With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
Your quote from Franklin, on the other hand, has absolutely no bearing on how to interpret Article I, Section 8.
You seem to be fishing for a quote that supports your position rather than trying to find out what the Founders actually intended and adjusting your position to match.
You write:
And regardless, the direction of this great nation is up to We, the People. That is why the Constitution has been constructed as it was. I have not heard a convincing argument that shows why we should limit our federal powers to roads and wars.
I agree that We the People direct this country, and we can change the Constitution, but the Constitution gives clear instructions on how change can be brought about: the amendment process in Article V. We could even change this process with a subsequent amendment.
However, all other processes are unconstitutional. It's fine to change the document by amendment, it's both unconstitutional and frankly dangerous to pretend that the document says something it doesn't.
The question isn't whether the federal government should do more than build armies and pave roads. The question is, does the Constitution limit the federal government's powers? It quite clearly does.
If you want the federal government to do more than is enumerated in the Constitution, you should do what Jefferson did regarding public education. You should seek to ammend the Constitution.
Post a Comment